Placeholder Image

字幕列表 影片播放

已審核 字幕已審核
  • In 2007, I became the attorney general

    2007年時,我成為紐澤西州

  • of the state of New Jersey.

    總檢察長。

  • Before that, I'd been a criminal prosecutor,

    在那之前,我擔任刑事檢察官,

  • first in the Manhattan district attorney's office,

    一開始在曼哈頓區檢察官辦公室,

  • and then at the United States Department of Justice.

    後來在美國司法部。

  • But when I became the attorney general,

    但是當我成為總檢察長後,

  • two things happened that changed the way I see criminal justice.

    發生了兩件事,改變我對刑事司法的看法。

  • The first is that I asked what I thought

    第一件事是我提出了一些我認為

  • were really basic questions.

    很基本的問題。

  • I wanted to understand who we were arresting,

    我想了解我們逮捕誰、

  • who we were charging,

    控告誰、

  • and who we were putting in our nation's jails

    以及把誰關進我國的拘留所

  • and prisons.

    和監獄。

  • I also wanted to understand

    我也想了解

  • if we were making decisions

    我們做決定的方式

  • in a way that made us safer.

    是否能讓我們更安全。

  • And I couldn't get this information out.

    我找不出答案。

  • It turned out that most big criminal justice agencies

    結果是多數的大型刑事司法機關,

  • like my own

    就像我工作的地方,

  • didn't track the things that matter.

    沒有追蹤重要的事情。

  • So after about a month of being incredibly frustrated,

    因此歷經大約一個月的強烈挫折感後,

  • I walked down into a conference room

    我走進一間會議室,

  • that was filled with detectives

    裡面擠滿警探

  • and stacks and stacks of case files,

    和堆積如山的案件資料,

  • and the detectives were sitting there

    警探坐在那,

  • with yellow legal pads taking notes.

    手拿黃色標準便條紙在做筆記。

  • They were trying to get the information

    他們試圖得到

  • I was looking for

    我在找的資訊,

  • by going through case by case

    逐一檢視

  • for the past five years.

    過去五年的案件。

  • And as you can imagine,

    如你所料,

  • when we finally got the results, they weren't good.

    最後得到的結果不太好。

  • It turned out that we were doing

    結論是我們辦了

  • a lot of low-level drug cases

    很多低階的街頭毒品案件,

  • on the streets just around the corner

    就在附近的街上,

  • from our office in Trenton.

    離我們在翠登的辦公室不遠。

  • The second thing that happened

    第二件發生的事情是

  • is that I spent the day in the Camden, New Jersey police department.

    我在紐澤西肯頓警局待的那一天。

  • Now, at that time, Camden, New Jersey,

    那時候紐澤西州肯頓

  • was the most dangerous city in America.

    是全美最危險的城市,

  • I ran the Camden Police Department because of that.

    這是我去肯頓警局的原因。

  • I spent the day in the police department,

    我在警局待一整天,

  • and I was taken into a room with senior police officials,

    被帶到一間房間,和資深警官在一起,

  • all of whom were working hard

    他們都很努力

  • and trying very hard to reduce crime in Camden.

    試著降低肯頓的犯罪率。

  • And what I saw in that room,

    當我們討論如何降低犯罪率時,

  • as we talked about how to reduce crime,

    我在那房裡看到

  • were a series of officers with a lot of little yellow sticky notes.

    一大堆警官拿著很多黃色的小型便利貼。

  • And they would take a yellow sticky and they would write something on it

    他們拿著一張黃色便利貼,在上面寫點東西,

  • and they would put it up on a board.

    把它貼在公布欄上。

  • And one of them said, "We had a robbery two weeks ago.

    其中一位會說:「兩個星期前有搶案。

  • We have no suspects."

    沒有嫌犯。」

  • And another said, "We had a shooting in this neighborhood last week. We have no suspects."

    另一位說:「上星期這附近有槍擊案。沒有嫌犯。」

  • We weren't using data-driven policing.

    我們沒有運用任何數據處理治安。

  • We were essentially trying to fight crime

    基本上,我們打算用黃色便利貼

  • with yellow Post-it notes.

    來打擊犯罪。

  • Now, both of these things made me realize

    這兩件事讓我了解

  • fundamentally that we were failing.

    我們徹底失敗了。

  • We didn't even know who was in our criminal justice system,

    我們甚至不知道誰在我們的刑事司法體系裡,

  • we didn't have any data about the things that mattered,

    我們沒有重要資料的數據,

  • and we didn't share data or use analytics

    也沒有共享數據、運用分析

  • or tools to help us make better decisions

    或工具來幫助我們做更好的決定,

  • and to reduce crime.

    並減少犯罪。

  • And for the first time, I started to think

    我第一次思考

  • about how we made decisions.

    我們是如何做決定。

  • When I was an assistant D.A.,

    我擔任地區助理檢察官

  • and when I was a federal prosecutor,

    和聯邦檢察官,

  • I looked at the cases in front of me,

    研究眼前的案件時,

  • and I generally made decisions based on my instinct

    幾乎都是靠直覺

  • and my experience.

    和經驗做決定。

  • When I became attorney general,

    當我成為總檢察長,

  • I could look at the system as a whole,

    能夠全面檢視體制,

  • and what surprised me is that I found

    讓我驚訝的是發現了

  • that that was exactly how we were doing it

    我們就是那樣做,

  • across the entire system --

    整個體制都是如此──

  • in police departments, in prosecutors's offices,

    在警察局、檢察署、

  • in courts and in jails.

    法院和監獄。

  • And what I learned very quickly

    很快我就了解

  • is that we weren't doing a good job.

    我們做得不好,

  • So I wanted to do things differently.

    於是就想用不同的方式做事。

  • I wanted to introduce data and analytics

    我想把數據、邏輯分析

  • and rigorous statistical analysis

    和精密統計分析

  • into our work.

    運用到工作上。

  • In short, I wanted to moneyball criminal justice.

    簡而言之,我想用魔球的方式處理刑事司法。

  • Now, moneyball, as many of you know,

    如在座許多人所知,

  • is what the Oakland A's did,

    魔球是奧克蘭運動家隊所運用的策略,

  • where they used smart data and statistics

    他們用數據和統計

  • to figure out how to pick players

    找出選擇球員的方法

  • that would help them win games,

    去幫助球隊贏球,

  • and they went from a system that was based on baseball scouts

    他們從前根據棒球球探意見,

  • who used to go out and watch players

    球探會出門去看球員,

  • and use their instinct and experience,

    然後以直覺和經驗,

  • the scouts' instincts and experience,

    球探的直覺和經驗,

  • to pick players, from one to use

    去挑選球員,

  • smart data and rigorous statistical analysis

    從運用數據和精密統計分析

  • to figure out how to pick players that would help them win games.

    找出要怎麼選出能讓他們贏得比賽的球員。

  • It worked for the Oakland A's,

    對奧克蘭運動家隊奏效了,

  • and it worked in the state of New Jersey.

    對紐澤西州也奏效了。

  • We took Camden off the top of the list

    我們讓肯頓不再名列

  • as the most dangerous city in America.

    美國最危險城市之一。

  • We reduced murders there by 41 percent,

    我們把當地兇殺案減少了 41%,

  • which actually means 37 lives were saved.

    意謂著救了 37 條人命。

  • And we reduced all crime in the city by 26 percent.

    我們將城裡各種犯罪活動減少了 26% 。

  • We also changed the way we did criminal prosecutions.

    我們也改變刑事訴訟的方式,

  • So we went from doing low-level drug crimes

    從處理低階的毒品犯罪,

  • that were outside our building

    那些發生在我們的大樓外,

  • to doing cases of statewide importance,

    轉變為遍及全州的重要案件,

  • on things like reducing violence with the most violent offenders,

    像是減少高度危險暴力犯的再犯率、

  • prosecuting street gangs,

    起訴街頭幫派、

  • gun and drug trafficking, and political corruption.

    槍枝和毒品運送,以及政治貪汙。

  • And all of this matters greatly,

    這一切帶來的影響甚大,

  • because public safety to me

    因為公共安全對我來說

  • is the most important function of government.

    是政府最重要的功能。

  • If we're not safe, we can't be educated,

    如果我們不安全,我們就無法接受教育,

  • we can't be healthy,

    就無法擁有健康,

  • we can't do any of the other things we want to do in our lives.

    我們就無法做所有生活中想做的事。

  • And we live in a country today

    今天我們居住的國家

  • where we face serious criminal justice problems.

    正面對嚴重的刑事司法問題。

  • We have 12 million arrests every single year.

    我們每年有 1,200 萬件逮捕案。

  • The vast majority of those arrests

    這些逮捕案最大部分的是

  • are for low-level crimes, like misdemeanors,

    低階犯罪,像是輕罪,

  • 70 to 80 percent.

    佔 70% 到 80%。

  • Less than five percent of all arrests

    只有不到 5% 的逮捕

  • are for violent crime.

    是暴力犯罪。

  • Yet we spend 75 billion,

    然而我們花費 750 億美元,

  • that's b for billion,

    是「百億」元,

  • dollars a year on state and local corrections costs.

    在州和地方一年的懲治支出上。

  • Right now, today, we have 2.3 million people

    現在,我們有 230 萬人

  • in our jails and prisons.

    在監獄和拘留所。

  • And we face unbelievable public safety challenges

    我們面對難以致信的公安問題

  • because we have a situation

    因為面對的處境是

  • in which two thirds of the people in our jails

    拘留所內三分之二的嫌疑犯

  • are there waiting for trial.

    正在等著審判,

  • They haven't yet been convicted of a crime.

    他們還沒被判有罪,

  • They're just waiting for their day in court.

    等著上法庭的那一天。

  • And 67 percent of people come back.

    67% 的嫌疑犯會回來。

  • Our recidivism rate is amongst the highest in the world.

    我們是全球累犯率最高的國家之一。

  • Almost seven in 10 people who are released

    在監被釋放的人之中,幾乎 10 個就有 7 個

  • from prison will be rearrested

    會再次被逮捕,

  • in a constant cycle of crime and incarceration.

    呈現不斷犯罪和監禁的循環。

  • So when I started my job at the Arnold Foundation,

    因此當我開始在阿諾德基金會工作,

  • I came back to looking at a lot of these questions,

    回頭來看這一大堆問題,

  • and I came back to thinking about how

    回頭來思考

  • we had used data and analytics to transform

    該如何使用數據和邏輯分析來轉變

  • the way we did criminal justice in New Jersey.

    我們在紐澤西刑事司法採取的方式。

  • And when I look at the criminal justice system

    當我檢視現今

  • in the United States today,

    美國的刑事司法體制時,

  • I feel the exact same way that I did

    我發現和當年在紐澤西起頭時

  • about the state of New Jersey when I started there,

    相同的情況,

  • which is that we absolutely have to do better,

    毫無疑問我們在那做得更好了,

  • and I know that we can do better.

    我也知道我們可以做得更好。

  • So I decided to focus

    因此我決定著眼在

  • on using data and analytics

    使用數據和邏輯分析,

  • to help make the most critical decision

    協助我們在公共安全中

  • in public safety,

    做最重要的決定,

  • and that decision is the determination

    而那個決定即是

  • of whether, when someone has been arrested,

    在某疑犯被逮捕時的判定,

  • whether they pose a risk to public safety

    不管是他們危及公共安全

  • and should be detained,

    該被拘留,

  • or whether they don't pose a risk to public safety

    又或是他們沒有危及公共安全

  • and should be released.

    而該被釋放。

  • Everything that happens in criminal cases

    每件在刑事案件中發生的事

  • comes out of this one decision.

    都來自於這個決定。

  • It impacts everything.

    這個決定影響每一件事,

  • It impacts sentencing.

    影響每一個判決,

  • It impacts whether someone gets drug treatment.

    影響某疑犯是否接受藥物治療,

  • It impacts crime and violence.

    影響暴力和犯罪。

  • And when I talk to judges around the United States,

    當我和全美法官談話時,

  • which I do all the time now,

    ── 我現在常這麼做 ──

  • they all say the same thing,

    他們都說一樣的話,

  • which is that we put dangerous people in jail,

    那就是我們把危險人物關進牢裡,

  • and we let non-dangerous, nonviolent people out.

    讓不危險、非暴力的人出來。

  • They mean it and they believe it.

    他們很認真,也深信不疑。

  • But when you start to look at the data,

    但當你開始檢視數據,

  • which, by the way, the judges don't have,

    附帶一提的是,法官沒有看過數據,

  • when we start to look at the data,

    當我們開始檢視數據,

  • what we find time and time again,

    就會一次又一次地發現

  • is that this isn't the case.

    根本不是如此。

  • We find low-risk offenders,

    我們見到低風險犯人

  • which makes up 50 percent of our entire criminal justice population,

    佔了所有刑事司法總人數的一半,

  • we find that they're in jail.

    我們發現他們在坐牢。

  • Take Leslie Chew, who was a Texas man

    看看一個名為萊斯理的德州人,

  • who stole four blankets on a cold winter night.

    他在一個寒冷冬夜偷了四件毛毯。

  • He was arrested, and he was kept in jail

    他被逮捕,關在牢裡,

  • on 3,500 dollars bail,

    保釋金為 3,500 美元,

  • an amount that he could not afford to pay.

    他繳不出保釋金,

  • And he stayed in jail for eight months

    因此留在牢裡八個月,

  • until his case came up for trial,

    直到案子開審,

  • at a cost to taxpayers of more than 9,000 dollars.

    花費納稅人超過 9,000 美元。

  • And at the other end of the spectrum,

    而在相反的那一端,

  • we're doing an equally terrible job.

    我們做得一樣很糟。

  • The people who we find

    我們見到的是

  • are the highest-risk offenders,

    高風險的犯人,

  • the people who we think have the highest likelihood

    我們認為這些人若被釋放,

  • of committing a new crime if they're released,

    將會極有可能再次犯罪,

  • we see nationally that 50 percent of those people

    都這些人全國大概有一半

  • are being released.

    被釋放了,

  • The reason for this is the way we make decisions.

    出自於我們做決定的方式。

  • Judges have the best intentions

    當法官要做出關於風險的這些決定時,

  • when they make these decisions about risk,

    他們是出於好意,

  • but they're making them subjectively.

    但是卻主觀地做出決定,

  • They're like the baseball scouts 20 years ago

    就像 20 年前的棒球球探,

  • who were using their instinct and their experience

    用直覺和經驗

  • to try to decide what risk someone poses.

    嘗試裁定某人會造成什麼危險。

  • They're being subjective,

    他們主觀意識強,

  • and we know what happens with subjective decision making,

    而我們知道主觀的決定會帶來什麼結果,

  • which is that we are often wrong.

    那就是我們經常會做錯。

  • What we need in this space

    我們在這裡需要的是

  • are strong data and analytics.

    強而有力的數據和邏輯分析。

  • What I decided to look for

    我決定找出

  • was a strong data and analytic risk assessment tool,

    強而有力的數據和邏輯分析風險評估工具,

  • something that would let judges actually understand

    透過科學和客觀的方式

  • with a scientific and objective way

    讓法官確實了解

  • what the risk was that was posed

    他們面前的人

  • by someone in front of them.

    可能造成什麼風險。

  • I looked all over the country,

    我檢視整個國家,

  • and I found that between five and 10 percent

    發現美國的所有司法轄區之中

  • of all U.S. jurisdictions

    約有 5% 到 10%

  • actually use any type of risk assessment tool,

    確實使用某種型式的風險評估工具,

  • and when I looked at these tools,

    當我研究這些工具,

  • I quickly realized why.

    很快就理解事出何因。

  • They were unbelievably expensive to administer,

    這些工具管理起來貴得嚇人,

  • they were time-consuming,

    耗費時間,

  • they were limited to the local jurisdiction

    而且只能限制在

  • in which they'd been created.

    他們所在的司法轄區。

  • So basically, they couldn't be scaled

    基本上,他們無法擴大規模

  • or transferred to other places.

    或是移轉到其它地方。

  • So I went out and built a phenomenal team

    因此我建立了一個出色的團隊,

  • of data scientists and researchers

    由數據科學家、研究人員

  • and statisticians

    和統計學家組成,

  • to build a universal risk assessment tool,

    來建立全面的風險評估工具,

  • so that every single judge in the United States of America

    如此一來每一位美國法官

  • can have an objective, scientific measure of risk.

    都可以擁有客觀、科學的風險測量。

  • In the tool that we've built,

    在我們設計的工具中,

  • what we did was we collected 1.5 million cases

    我們搜集了

  • from all around the United States,

    全美 150 萬個案件,

  • from cities, from counties,

    它們來自城市、郡市、

  • from every single state in the country,

    來自全國每一個州、

  • the federal districts.

    來自聯邦地區。

  • And with those 1.5 million cases,

    而這 150 萬個案件

  • which is the largest data set on pretrial

    是美國現今審判前

  • in the United States today,

    最大的資料組,

  • we were able to basically find that there were

    基本上我們能找出

  • 900-plus risk factors that we could look at

    900 個以上的危險因子,我們可以從其中檢視,

  • to try to figure out what mattered most.

    嘗試找出什麼是最重要的。

  • And we found that there were nine specific things

    我們發現有特定的九件事

  • that mattered all across the country

    在全國各地都很重要,

  • and that were the most highly predictive of risk.

    而那些是最容易看得出來的風險。

  • And so we built a universal risk assessment tool.

    我們建置出一套全面的風險評估工具,

  • And it looks like this.

    看起來就像這樣,

  • As you'll see, we put some information in,

    就像你看到的,我們會放入一些資訊,